Judge Simpson EXPOSES Chilling Deleted Texts — Bond DOUBLED Instantly!

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:00]versus Courtney Waldick.

[00:00:13]>> Your honor with Courtney Waldick.

[00:00:19]>> Judge, uh, this is date time set for our second probable cause conference. At this time, Miss Waldick is inclined to wave a right to preliminary exam and we've gone over those rights.

[00:00:29]Well, the is that correct? You're waving your right to a preliminary examination.

[00:00:33]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:00:34]>> You understand that is a proceeding where the people would have to show by probable cause that the offense alleged was committed and that you committed it?

[00:00:40]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:00:41]>> And you understand that you'll not have that hearing and you'll proceed to circuit court for further resolution?

[00:00:45]>> Yes, your honor.

[00:00:46]>> People also wave their right.

[00:00:48]>> Yes, your honor, we do. And the date, I'd like to address bond if you appropriate time.

[00:00:54]>> Pardon? Yes, I wait. But in case this affects her pre-trial date, I'd like to address Bond if you have.

[00:00:59]>> Right out of the gate, this hearing takes a hard turn from procedural routine into something way more serious.

[00:01:05]What was supposed to be a standard probable cause conference suddenly becomes a battle over bond, accountability, and whether the court believes this defendant is actually safe to remain out before trial. And you can already feel the tension building because the prosecutor is not backing down here. They're renewing a request for a massive cash bond increase, which tells you the state believes the original release conditions seriously underestimated the gravity of what allegedly happened. Now, remember, Courtney has already waved her preliminary examination rights, meaning this case is moving forward to circuit court without the prosecution having to publicly lay out every piece of evidence at a probable cause hearing. That alone raises the stakes because now both sides are shifting into damage control mode before trial even begins. The prosecution wants the judge focused on danger to the public, alleged concealment, and the emotional weight of the case. The defense, meanwhile, is going to try to hammer compliance, innocence, and constitutional rights.

[00:02:05]And pay attention to Judge Simpson here.

[00:02:07]He's calm, controlled, but he's listening very carefully already. In hearings like this, judges aren't just evaluating facts. They're evaluating credibility, attitude, consistency, and risk. One wrong detail can completely shift the court's view of a defendant.

[00:02:24]And judging by the prosecutor's tone, they're about to present this case as far more disturbing than the original bond hearing suggested.

[00:02:32]>> All right. So, before I set the date, you may address my go.

[00:02:36]>> Your honor, at the time my office charged this case, we requested a 100,000 cashity bond. At this time, I am renewing that request. I understand that Miss Waldvic was given a 50,000 10% bond the time of her. When we were last before your honor, I did not have the benefit of uh uh certainly I still don't have the report because the investigation continues to be ongoing. However, the information that is now available to me has grown substantially since we were last here.

[00:03:08]Um, I will start off by going through essentially the timeline of what occurred here. In the early morning of January 21st, 2024, um, people that were commuting to work or other locations observed and discovered the body of Miss Shelley Mason lying on the side of Prospect.

[00:03:29]It was unknown at the time what occurred to Miss Mason, who killed her, and who was involved. But the police were rapidly able to put together an investigation that led to them to be able to identify Miss Wald as the person that killed Miss.

[00:03:45]On January 20th, the day of the crash, Miss Wald had been to a uh baby shower. She then went to days in Italy with her friends where she was drinking with her friends.

[00:04:03]She was texting people that were not present, somebody who was either her friend or her boyfriend. She had texted things to her boyfriend about meeting up with him later. In her text messages to her boyfriend, she indicated that she was out drinking with her friends and that she would be continuing to be drinking with her friends. She referenced to him that she wouldn't feel comfortable driving too far to meet him later. and I apologize for my language, but that she was going to be really [ __ ] up. She did drive instead, though. She drove her car and she killed Miss Mason. This is where the prosecution starts tightening the emotional and legal screws at the exact same time. Up until now, they've been laying out timeline details, text messages, drinking allegations, and movements throughout the night. But this statement right here changes the atmosphere in the courtroom completely because now the prosecutor is directly connecting the defendant's decision-making to the death itself. And notice how strategic this presentation is. They're not just arguing that a crash happened. They're painting a picture of awareness and choice.

[00:05:06]According to the prosecution, Courtney allegedly knew she had been drinking.

[00:05:10]Allegedly discussed being really [ __ ] up. allegedly expressed hesitation about driving far and then allegedly drove.

[00:05:17]Anyway, that combination matters because prosecutors know intent and awareness heavily influence how dangerous a defendant appears before trial. But then comes the part that really hits emotionally, the allegation that she didn't stop. That's where juries, judges, and the public often react strongest in cases like this. A crash alone is one thing. allegedly leaving the scene, delaying help, or failing to call police can completely transform how a case is perceived morally. The prosecution understands that and they are hammering it hard.

[00:05:51]After getting home, she and I should say she did stop. She did not call the police and she left there. After getting home, Courtney, Miss Wald, saw her roommate.

[00:06:06]Her roommate's name is Sarah. Now, notably, we now know that Sarah actually drove that same route as Courtney a couple minutes ahead. And did see Miss Mason alive and walking on the road. And Sarah initially told the police that she saw Miss Mason walking on the shoulder, which is physical evidence in this case as well. But when Courtney got home and this is sort of serious as I understand it as well as from the text messages that followed this. Courtney was quite hysterical.

[00:06:40]Courtney, excuse me, I'm going to call her Courtney. Courtney told Sarah that she had hit someone and that she needed to go back.

[00:06:49]Courtney and her roommate took over an hour to return to the scene. During this time, Courtney did not call the police.

[00:06:57]She did not ask for anybody to go out to the scene to help Miss Mason.

[00:07:03]Instead, she started texting her friends, her family, her reaction to this was substantial and quite emotional.

[00:07:16]However, when Courtney came in for her interview with the police, which mind you was the Friday following, so she came in for her interview on January 26.

[00:07:28]The crash occurred on January 20th.

[00:07:32]She told the police that she believed that she hid a deer, that deer had just kind of popped out of nowhere, that she saw just coming at her.

[00:07:42]We know from our interview with Sarah, the roommate, that Miss Mason was walking down the road.

[00:07:49]>> Now, the prosecution is moving into one of the most dangerous areas for the defense, conflicting narratives.

[00:07:55]Earlier, according to investigators, Courtney allegedly claimed she thought she hit a deer, but now prosecutors are introducing statements from the roommate Sarah that potentially undermine that explanation entirely. And in court, inconsistencies like this can become devastating because they raise a huge question. What did the defendant actually believe happened that night?

[00:08:17]The prosecution is carefully building a chain here. They're arguing that Sarah saw the victim walking on the roadway minutes before Courtney drove through the same area. Then prosecutors claim Courtney returned home saying, "I think I hit someone, not I hit a deer." That distinction is massive because if the court believes Courtney suspected she hit a person and still failed to immediately contact authorities, that dramatically changes how the alleged conduct is viewed legally and morally.

[00:08:45]And this is exactly why prosecutors focus so heavily on post incident behavior. In many criminal cases, what someone does after an event can become just as important as the event itself.

[00:08:56]delays, statements, deleted evidence, contradictions. Prosecutors treat those things like puzzle pieces, showing consciousness of guilt. Sarah saw Miss Mason a couple minutes ahead of Courtney and that Miss Mason was walking down the road. But what we also know is that Courtney didn't think she hit a deer.

[00:09:16]Sarah has now told us that Courtney came home and said, "I think I hit someone."

[00:09:23]Sarah has confirmed her for us that there was no mention of a deer.

[00:09:29]So when Courtney got home thinking that she hit someone without calling the police or stopping to help that someone, she continued to tell her friends and her family what she had done and what stress she didn't call the police, leaving Miss Mason lying in the snow on the side of prospect in who knows what condition.

[00:09:55]And I will say that the evidence in this case is clear out that it is possible that if Courtney had just called the police, Miss Mason might still be alive.

[00:10:06]That's why we have crimes like this.

[00:10:07]That's why the penalties for crimes like this are so substantial because Miss Mason may have still been alive and may still be with us right now.

[00:10:16]Miss Mason was a mother. She was a daughter and she was a grandmother. And that woman was left on the side of the road without anybody call with any help being sent her way.

[00:10:29]But not only did Courtney not call the police and not attempt to save Miss Mason in any way, what what I now know is that Courtney then deleted approximately 150 messages off of She deleted those messages that I referenced earlier about her not wanting to drive so far. She deleted a message about her being [ __ ] up. And I will make clear for the record, the message says, "I'm hoping to be [ __ ] up." Not that she currently was when she sent it.

[00:10:58]She deleted a message that said, "I wish I I wish I would have called 911 immediately."

[00:11:04]>> This might be one of the most emotionally explosive moments in the entire prosecution argument. Why?

[00:11:10]Because now we're no longer just talking about the crash itself. We're talking about alleged deleted messages that prosecutors claim reveal regret, panic, and awareness after the fact. And when jurors hear phrases like, "I wish I would have called 911 immediately," that hits differently. It instantly creates the image of someone allegedly realizing the seriousness of what happened too late. Now, legally, deleted messages can become incredibly important in bond hearings because courts often interpret destruction or concealment of evidence as a risk factor. Prosecutors are clearly trying to frame these deletions as deliberate acts that show poor judgment and possible consciousness of guilt. They're essentially telling Judge Simpson, "This isn't just about a tragic accident anymore. This is about what allegedly happened afterward." And then prosecutors add another emotional punch by arguing that the victim might still be alive had help arrived sooner. That's a brutal argument because it directly connects delay with possible loss of life. Whether that claim can ultimately be medically proven at trial is another question entirely, but for bond purposes, the emotional impact is undeniable.

[00:12:16]>> And she also deleted got to live with it and get my car fixed ASAP.

[00:12:25]Deleted before her phone was turned over to the police. What she also did when she got home, and I know that defense council will argue that this was normal for her behavior, was she parked her vehicle into her garage.

[00:12:39]That garage, that car remained in the garage and the car door remained, excuse me, the garage door remained closed as far as I understand it with the garage inside.

[00:12:48]The police subsequently did a search warrant and it wasn't until they were there with the search warrant that they were then given consent to go into the garage and discover the Jeep.

[00:13:03]Your honor, her guidelines as I score them are 19 months to 38 months as I currently come from. My office requested a 100,000 cash bond at the time of charging this and I am again reviewing the request. Thank you, your honor.

[00:13:18]>> Response.

[00:13:18]>> Thank you, judge. Obviously, I don't have to tell the court that Miss Waldick stands here before you innocent until proven guilty. I'm not going to try the case in front of you, but I will address the things that were just said. Uh, first and foremost, there was an arraignment on January 28th where, as Miss Hughes indicated, their office requested a $100,000 bond. A record was made. Uh, prosecutor who attended the Zoom arraignment on that Sunday, uh, myself each made a record and bond was set at 50,000 10% with an alcohol tether. It's our argument to the court that that was not an unreasonable unreasonable bond, nor was it an abuse of discretion. Uh the fact that there's an ongoing investigation or this was charged early, that's not my client's fault. Maybe the prosecutor's office should have waited until the investigation was complete. With that said, Miss Hughes indicates there was some drinking going on. My client turned herself in as a person of possible interest to the Washington County Sheriff's Department to Detective Webb on January 26th.

[00:14:19]>> And here comes the defense counterattack. After the prosecution spent nearly eight straight minutes building an emotionally charged narrative, defense council is now trying to pull the courtroom back toward constitutional principles, procedural fairness, and reasonable doubt. This is a very deliberate pivot. The defense strategy here is simple but important.

[00:14:40]Separate allegations from proven facts.

[00:14:42]They're emphasizing that Courtney voluntarily appeared for questioning, complied with law enforcement, and has been following bond conditions without violations. That matters because bond hearings are not supposed to punish someone before conviction. They're supposed to assess risk. So, the defense is arguing that the prosecution is using a motion and incomplete investigation details to justify harsher restrictions.

[00:15:05]Notice too how council attacks the timeline issue. He points out that investigators themselves allegedly requested the Friday interview date. Why is that significant? Because prosecutors are heavily implying delay equals guilt, while the defense is reframing it as coordination with law enforcement rather than evasion. That's a huge distinction.

[00:15:26]Then comes another smart move, challenging the really fcked up text interpretation. The defense argues the wording referred to future intent, not current intoxication.

[00:15:36]That may sound minor, but wording battles become critical in criminal litigation because a single phrase can dramatically affect perception.

[00:15:44]>> That date could have been sooner and the police report indicates could have been sooner, but Detective Web actually asked her to come in on Friday and not the Thursday beforehand.

[00:15:55]Uh, I appreciate Miss Hughes said that no evidence that Miss Waldick was quote unquote [ __ ] up, but that maybe she had said she was going to be. That talks about something in the future. It doesn't mean that she was. This same witness that Miss Hughes talks about, and I don't think Miss Hughes would uh this Sarah, quote unquote, Sarah who has come forth and said some things is the same Sarah who said she nothing about this originally. So now we have two different stories from Sarah because originally Sarah said she had no idea what happened on the date in question.

[00:16:31]Miss Waldick has now since the arraignment been before here on January on February 22nd for her.

[00:16:41]She's been compliant with bond the whole two months to today's date that she has been on bond since being arraigned with an alcohol tether the whole time before she was released from jail with absolutely no issues. So this is the second time before you but including going to the sheriff's department to speak to Detective Web. She's appeared three times. She's not a flight risk. In addition to being on alcohol tether and having no issues, she's also reporting checking into community corrections weekly. I've heard nothing today regarding any bond violations because I don't think there are any.

[00:17:20]There's been no change in circumstances as we see it since the date of the arraignment. Miss Waldick is is definitely not a flight risk and she's not shown that she's a danger to the community in the past two months at all.

[00:17:32]Again, there's been no allegations of that.

[00:17:34]Judge, the eth amendment of the US Constitution indicates that the court shall provide a bail that is not excessive.

[00:17:43]Stack versus boil 342 US1 and people versus Edund 81 mishap 743 says bail that is set in an amount higher than reasonably calculated.

[00:17:54]>> This is where the defense shifts from emotional rebuttal into full legal framework mode. And honestly, this is a classic defense maneuver in bond disputes. When the facts feel emotionally heavy, defense attorneys often anchor the judge back into constitutional standards and appellet case law. They want the court focused on principles, not outrage. Defense council is now arguing that bail cannot be punitive. Under the ETH amendment, bond must be reasonably calculated to ensure court appearance not to function as pre-trial punishment. That distinction is one of the biggest battlegrounds in criminal law right now across the country. Judges constantly balance public safety concerns against constitutional protections for defendants who are still legally presumed innocent. And notice how methodical the defense becomes here.

[00:18:40]They go factor by factor. No criminal history, no missed appearances, stable employment, community ties, family support, compliance with alcohol tether, weekly reporting. All of that is designed to show structure and stability. They're basically presenting Courtney as someone rooted in the community rather than someone preparing to disappear >> to give adequate assurance that the accused will appear is excessive under the ETH amendment.

[00:19:07]Edmund goes on to say that courts have held that money bail is excessive if it is in an amount greater than reasonably necessary to adequately assure that the accused will appear when her presence is required.

[00:19:22]Court rules are designed to enforce these principles, judge. And under these rules, there's a double presumption that a pre-trial arresty will be released without any case bail requirement. And that's stated in 765.6 MLA 765.6 that impart a person accused of a criminal offense is entitled to bail, the amount of bail shall not be excessive.

[00:19:46]Court rules go on to indicate what the money bail should be and what is required um and what's considered in terms of setting bond. And those things under subsection F6.106 say a defendant's prior criminal record.

[00:20:03]She has none. Defendant's record of appearance and non-appearance or flight to avoid prosecution. She's been at everything. She's actually been at more.

[00:20:12]That flight isue also includes concealment of evidence, doesn't it?

[00:20:18]>> And I guess this came up at the bench when we were here on surprisingly on 228 or 220 our last probable cause conference date 222 when neither party had address asked to address bond, but you had mentioned it. Well, council, if you want to point at me, I'll tell you exactly what I know about this case. What I know about this case is the warrants came to me.

[00:20:44]That's how I knew and that it came to me because it got a because I'm in charge of all of these felonies and reviewing every bond that comes through. So that's how it came to me. So if you want to make dispersions against the court, go for it. Let's roll.

[00:20:59]>> Uh-oh. This is one of those moments where the entire energy inside a courtroom changes instantly. Judge Simpson clearly feels that defense council may be implying the court acted improperly or unfairly during prior bond discussions and the judge shuts that down immediately. And this exchange matters way beyond simple courtroom tension. Judges take impartiality extremely seriously. So when a defense attorney appears to suggest that a judge independently develop concerns outside normal procedure, things can escalate fast. Notice how Judge Simpson responds.

[00:21:31]He explains that reviewing felony bonds is literally part of his responsibility and that the information came before him through standard judicial processes. In other words, he's protecting the integrity of the court itself. What makes this moment especially important is tone. Judges watch attorney conduct carefully. Respectful disagreement is normal. But once a judge believes council is coming at the court personally, the atmosphere can become icy very quickly. And you can hear that edge here. Judge Simpson is no longer speaking in detached procedural language. He's speaking directly and firmly.

[00:22:07]>> I'm not making distursions. I'm saying court had asked us to approach and talked about >> because I'm putting everybody on notice where I am. That's why. Go ahead. You want to come at me? Let's do it.

[00:22:19]>> I'm making a record as to >> No, go ahead. Make your record. I'm just telling you where I am.

[00:22:24]>> In addition, and obviously we know that search warrants aren't necessarily evidence. I appreciate that you post things or alleged things because you were a party to the search warrants. In addition to what I've already indicated in terms of bond, she's not a flight risk. She's appeared at every court appearance. She's gone to the sheriff's department, met with Detective Webb. She consented to a release of and a search of her phone. She doesn't have any shown history of substance abuse or addiction, a mental condition. Uh she's employed thankfully at a local hospital. She's got family members here.

[00:22:59]She's probably got about five family members here. She lives locally. She's got ties to the community. Again, Bond is set at protecting the community and a flight risk. I think that what she has shown over the course of the past two months is she's neither. I'd ask that Bond stay the same. Thank you.

[00:23:17]>> Nothing further, your honor. Thank you.

[00:23:20]court and looking at the file and so that the record is clear council came to the bench and the court was apprising council that the court had some concerns with bond that was sat neither council at that time was a pri was ready to base the bond there were certain things that came to the court's attention that were not in the magistrate's mind nor the magistrate's information at the time of the arraignment I brought that to council's attention quite frankly out of fear fairness um to both sides so that it could probably be argued before the court. What was not known certainly to the match at the time was that there was this delay.

[00:24:05]There was information that was provided to the magistrate at the time regarding the defendant turning herself in which was somewhat confusing as to how that occurred. Now, Judge Simpson begins laying out his own reasoning very carefully. And this is critical because judges often build a detailed verbal record before making a controversial bond ruling. He's essentially explaining why the original bond amount may no longer reflect the information currently available to the court. And look at the factors he emphasizes. Delays, evolving evidence, deleted text messages, possible concealment issues, and the defendant's alleged awareness after the crash. These are exactly the kinds of considerations courts examine when determining whether release conditions remain appropriate. The judge is making it very clear that his concern is not based on a single emotional reaction.

[00:24:56]It's based on an accumulation of information that allegedly was not available during the original arraignment. What's especially damaging for the defense here is the judge repeatedly referencing evidence destruction concerns. Courts treat alleged deletion of messages very seriously because it potentially speaks to obstruction, concealment, and reliability. Even before trial, that can heavily influence how much trust a court places in a defendant's compliance moving forward.

[00:25:23]>> Prize council of that what my initial conclusion or what I saw was based upon what was presented to me prior to that hearing. Additionally, since that time, something that was not available to the magistrate were these text messages which lead also to the defendant's knowledge which play into this court's mind as to this defendant's danger to the public. Furthermore, there is in terms of the issue of flight of concealment of evidence and the like now the deletions of text messages and other evidence um in this case which have just been alluded to of the deletion of basically evidence which I think also bears upon um the defendant's risk in this case. Also, the likelihood the court can take into account the likelihood of conviction and other things as it regards to setting a bond. Um but certainly there is now clearly more information that's available to the court um regarding this defendant um the offense that was committed and and the like. Uh the court I will also take into account the fact that there I don't have any community corrections violations. I don't have anything along those lines. I do not believe that given the the information now available to the court that the amount of the bond that is was originally set I do not believe that it is appropriate and that additional bond would be required in this case.

[00:27:23]>> And there it is. Judge Simpson officially decides the original bond is no longer appropriate. After hearing arguments from both sides, reviewing additional investigative details and weighing the alleged evidence deletions and postc crash conduct, the court increases Courtney's bond from $50,000 cash shity to $100,000 cash. But did you catch the most chilling part? The judge actually says that based on what he now knows, he could justify setting it even higher. That line tells you everything about how seriously the court is viewing the allegations at this stage. Even though this is not a conviction and not a trial, the judge is signaling substantial concern regarding public safety, evidence issues, and the overall circumstances surrounding the case. At the same time, the court does stop short of going beyond the prosecution's requested amount. So, while the defense loses the bond argument, they avoid an even more severe outcome. And immediately afterward, both sides shift gears back into procedural logistics, posting bond, circuit court scheduling, plea formalities, because the machine of the criminal justice system keeps moving no matter how emotionally charged the hearing becomes.

[00:28:42]Defendants bond, Mr. Allen, the defendants bond in this case will be increased. I think that the amount requested by the people was an appropriate amount. Um quite frankly it was appropriate but now knowing what I know I would actually raise it beyond that but I will not do so. Um in this case her bond will be increased from 50,000 cash shy to $100,000 cash shy.

[00:29:06]Are they council just for the purposes of anything are they able to do that right now or >> we we've made arrangements. There's a shy bondsman in the courtroom who can do that. If you can give us 15 to 20 minutes, it'll be taken care of.

[00:29:21]>> She'll be taken back and do that. I think they can do that.

[00:29:27]>> Sorry. We need to aren't her on the information. I I interrupted all of our proceedings.

[00:29:31]>> Oh, okay. Yes, that's to the circuit court. We'd wave the reading of the complaint to have the matter circuit court pre-trial. As that you she stand for a reading standing mute, the court will enter a not guilty plea pre-trial.

[00:29:45]She well technically council just and I'll do it for the convenience of your schedule.

[00:29:53]Technically she would be given the in date but if it looks like you're going to post I give the out date. So >> should be out.

[00:29:59]>> She'll be out >> May 2nd at 1:30 before slay Thursday.

[00:30:04]>> Pre-trial May 2nd 2024 1:30 before that's a slay Monday.

[00:30:09]>> Slay Thursday.

[00:30:10]>> Slay Thursday.

[00:30:13]Judge after that uh shy is posted. Can I come back with proof so that please?

[00:30:21]>> Thank you.

[00:30:22]>> What started as a procedural probable cause conference evolved into a full-scale battle over responsibility, credibility, and risk assessment. And by the end of this hearing, Judge Simpson made it crystal clear that the court views the allegations in this case with extreme seriousness. The prosecution spent this hearing building a narrative centered around alleged drinking, delayed reporting, deleted messages, and the devastating claim that the victim may have survived had emergency help arrived sooner. Meanwhile, the defense fought aggressively to remind the court that Courtney Waldick remains legally presumed innocent, has complied with release conditions, attended every court appearance, and has no prior criminal history. But ultimately, Judge Simpson determined that the newer investigative information, especially the alleged text deletions and concealment concerns, justified doubling the defendant's bond from $50,000 to $100,000 cash shity. And perhaps the most telling moment came when the judge openly admitted he considered going even higher. That statement alone shows how heavily the court weighed the prosecution's presentation. Now the case moves forward into circuit court where the real legal battle is only beginning. Questions about intent, credibility, evidence handling, and responsibility are still far from resolved. And as always in criminal proceedings, allegations are not convictions. The justice system now moves into its next phase. If you found this case as shocking as we did, make sure to hit that like button, share your thoughts in the comments, and don't forget to subscribe for more jaw-dropping courtroom breakdowns.